Case Digest: HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs. MIGUELA C. DAILO

G.R. NO. 153802

HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs. MIGUELA C. DAILO

FACTS:

Respondent Miguela C. Dailo and Marcelino Dailo, Jr. were married on August 8, 1967. During their marriage, the spouses purchased a house and lot in San Pablo City, registered in the name of Marcelino Dailo to the exclusion of his wife.

In 1993, through a grant of Special Power of Attorney to Lilibeth Osmundo, Marcelino obtained a loan from petitioner Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank, secured by the property in San Pablo. Gesmundo also executed a Real Estate Mortgage constituted on the subject property in favor of petitioner without the knowledge and consent of respondent. The loan matured and remained outstanding which led to the foreclosure of the mortgage.

In 1993, Marcelino died.

Respondent found out later about the mortgage and claimed that she had no knowledge of it. She further claims that the property was conjugal in nature and so she consequently filed for the Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage and Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership, Deed of Sale, Reconveyance with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Damages against petitioner. In the latter’s Answer with Counterclaim, petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the property in question was the exclusive property of the late Marcelino Dailo, Jr. The Court of appeals favored Miguela. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

1.) Whether or not the mortgage entered into by respondent’s husband without her knowledge was valid.

2.) Whether or not the property may be held liable for the obligation obtained by the late Marcelino Dailo.

HELD:

The court held that the property relations of respondent and her late husband shall be governed, foremost, by Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains of the Family Code and, suppletorily, by the rules on partnership under the Civil Code. In case of conflict, the former prevails because the Civil Code provisions on partnership apply only when the Family Code is silent on the matter.

Marcelino and Miguela Dailo were married before the effectivity of the Family Code. In the absence of a marriage settlement, their properties were governed by the system of Conjugal Partnership of gains, which was made also made applicable after the effectivity of the Code.

Article 124 of the Family Code, in the absence of (court) authority or written consent of the other spouse, any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void. The Court ruled that the mortgage entered into by Marcelino without his wife’s consent and, thus, was void.

As to the issue of liability of the property for the obligation obtained by Marcelino, the court held that for failure to present clear proof that the said obligation redounded to the benefit of the family which under Article 121 of the Family Code, the subject property could not be held liable.

Categories: case digest, FAMREL, g.r. no. 153802, HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs. MIGUELA C. DAILO